Ok, why should *this* guy live?

[ponderingturtle]

OK, so you don't understand how double jeopardy works. That's the problem, I see.

So it really means you can only be tried twice for the same crime.

 

[Alt+F4]

Just to play devils advocate with this: He was tried for this crime with the full weight of a legal investigation, and found not guilty. Now he has confessed. But people confess to things they didn't do all the time. Why is it so clear that it is a truthful confession, rather than a bit of unpleasant bragging, when the full investigation didn't throw up enough evidence to convict him?

According to the OP article he was indeed convicted but the verdict was thrown out because prosecutors had not proved that other necessary death-eligible offenses were committed against the victim. He wrote the letter which describe the crime in detail and was tried again.

Why would his lawyer would think this was double jeopardy? The first verdict was thrown out so wouldn't the second guilt verdict actually be the first?

 

[dtugg]

So it really means you can only be tried twice for the same crime.

He wasn't tried for the same crime both times.

 

[Mister Earl]

Everyone deserves to live. In particular, this guy should be allowed to live in the desert, chained to a rock, with no water anywhere around.

Yep. Everyone has the right to live. It's the context that's the interesting part.

 

[ponderingturtle]

He wasn't tried for the same crime both times.

He was tried twice for murder of one person. This is rather like a case where someone is aquited of murder then stronger evidence shows up and would likely have gotten them convicted. You can't do it all over again there.

 

[Drudgewire]

???

It doesn't have to be a single person, it is a non natural, non suicide death. Why would this count less than Michael Jackson?

I'm simply going by the Webster definition that says "killing of one person by another."

Again, I believe it's homicide. All I'm saying is that definition provides grey area for someone who wanted to be a dick about it.

 

[zooterkin]

He was tried twice for murder of one person. This is rather like a case where someone is aquited of murder then stronger evidence shows up and would likely have gotten them convicted. You can't do it all over again there.

Just for information, the situation used to be the same in the UK regarding double jeopardy, but the law was changed in 2005; retrials are now allowed if there is "new" and "compelling" evidence for crimes, including murder, but also manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, armed robbery, and serious drug crimes. All cases must be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Court Of Appeal must agree to quash the original acquittal.

This was partly prompted by things like DNA evidence, which can now show that someone who had been acquitted before the technology was developed was in fact guilty.

 

[dtugg]

He was tried twice for murder of one person. This is rather like a case where someone is aquited of murder then stronger evidence shows up and would likely have gotten them convicted. You can't do it all over again there.

He was tried for murder and rape the first time, the two tied together with rape being the aggravating circumstance making him eligible for the death penalty. The court threw it out because they said the prosecution didn't adequately prove he raped her. He then thinking he was off admitted to trying to rape her. He was then charged with murder and attempted rape, attempted rape also being an aggravating circumstance making him eligible for the death penalty. With this being a different charge, it is not double jeopardy. If he had admitted that he had actually raped her and they charged him with murder and rape again I suppose it would be, although I suspect the state would have just went back and charged him with regular murder and not capital murder in that case, just like they probably would have done if he didn't write the letter at all.

But heh, go on and believe you know more about constitutional law than the SCOTUS and all the other courts that heard this case if you like.

 

[GreNME]

Ok, why should *this* guy live?

There's no compelling reason for why this guy should be sucking air.

The more important question should be: why do you think you or the government is qualified to judge when and how someone-- even someone as useless as this pile of crap-- should meet death?

 

[Arcade22]

There's no compelling reason for why this guy should be sucking air.

The more important question should be: why do you think you or the government is qualified to judge when and how someone-- even someone as useless as this pile of crap-- should meet death?

The state has an obligation to protect society from external as well as internal threats by punishing aggressors and offenders who have shown themselves to be hostile to society.
The most extreme of these offenders, murderers and rapists for example, should be punished in the most vicious of ways, namely trough death.

The punishment should fit the crime and the only punishment that fit this crime is death.

 

[AvalonXQ]

He was tried for murder and rape the first time, the two tied together with rape being the aggravating circumstance making him eligible for the death penalty. The court threw it out because they said the prosecution didn't adequately prove he raped her.

That's not quite right.
He was originally accused of murdering girl A and raping girl B. The murder of girl A was asserted as a capital crime originally on the basis of robbery (robbery was the "gradation crime"). Before the trial, two additional "gradation crimes" were added to the charges -- the rape and sodomization of girl B.
He was convicted of the murder of girl A and the rape of girl B, and acquitted of robbery. He was sentenced to death.
The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the verdict and remanded on the basis that the pretrial amendment changed the nature of the crime, and so was impermissible. Let's make this clear: the verdict was reversed on the basis that capital murder with an attempted robbery gradation crime is a different crime than capital murder with an attempted rape gradation crime.*
The Supreme Court of Virginia also ruled that the rape of girl B could not, in this case, be a gradation crime for the murder of girl A.
The Defendant then taunted the prosecuter that he had attempted to rape girl A; the attempted rape of girl A had not previously been before the jury.
So he was accused of a new crime (and we have to agree it's a new crime or else his original death sentence stands): the capital murder of girl A with the gradation crime of attempting to rape girl A. He was convicted of this crime thanks to his own letters.
No double jeopardy here -- he almost got his death sentence eliminated on a technicality, but that same technicality later got it reinstated. Justice was served, as was due process and the rule of law.

*ETA: Under Virginia law, capital murder of girl A during the attempted rape of girl A and capital murder of girl A during the attempted rape of girl B are separate crimes. If you don't want to be tried twice for murdering the same person, don't rape two people while you do it.

 

[AvalonXQ]

But heh, go on and believe you know more about constitutional law than the SCOTUS and all the other courts that heard this case if you like.

Quick point: SCOTUS denied cert. So SCOTUS didn't and won't hear the case. Denying cert doesn't imply that SCOTUS agrees; it just means they're not willing to deal with the case.

 

[dtugg]

That's not quite right.
He was originally accused of murdering girl A and raping girl B. The murder of girl A was asserted as a capital crime originally on the basis of robbery (robbery was the "gradation crime"). Before the trial, two additional "gradation crimes" were added to the charges -- the rape and sodomization of girl B.
He was convicted of the murder of girl A and the rape of girl B, and acquitted of robbery. He was sentenced to death.
The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the verdict and remanded on the basis that the pretrial amendment changed the nature of the crime, and so was impermissible. Let's make this clear: the verdict was reversed on the basis that capital murder with an attempted robbery gradation crime is a different crime than capital murder with an attempted rape gradation crime.
The Supreme Court of Virginia also ruled that the rape of girl B could not, in this case, be a gradation crime for the murder of girl A.
The Defendant then taunted the prosecuter that he had attempted to rape girl A; the attempted rape of girl A had not previously been before the jury.
So he was accused of a new crime (and we have to agree it's a new crime or else his original death sentence stands): the capital murder of girl A with the gradation crime of attempting to rape girl A. He was convicted of this crime thanks to his own letters.
No double jeopardy here -- he almost got his death sentence eliminated on a technicality, but that same technicality later got it reinstated. Justice was served, as was due process and the rule of law.

OK, thanks for clearing that up. It's even more clear cut that I thought.

 

[GreNME]

The state has an obligation to protect society from external as well as internal threats by punishing aggressors and offenders who have shown themselves to be hostile to society.
The most extreme of these offenders, murderers and rapists for example, should be punished in the most vicious of ways, namely trough death.

The punishment should fit the crime and the only punishment that fit this crime is death.

So the government is obligated to eliminate these people?

 

[Skeptic]

That this scum deserves the death penalty is obvious. Whether there should be a system that delivers the death penalty is another issue. For example, in this case, there already is a death penalty system, but he avoided it, while it might well be that some people who are on death row are less horrible than he is, and some of them, for all I know, might actually be innocent (since human error occurs in all cases). The possibility of error, and the possibility of those less guilty receiving the worse punishment, should give us pause.

 

[Wowbagger]

He was tried twice for murder of one person. This is rather like a case where someone is aquited of murder then stronger evidence shows up and would likely have gotten them convicted. You can't do it all over again there.

I thought someone could be tried for a crime, again, if new evidence came about to make such a trial worthwhile.

Wouldn't this confession constitute new evidence?

 

[AvalonXQ]

I thought someone could be tried for a crime, again, if new evidence came about to make such a trial worthwhile.

No; that would be double jeopardy.
Once you've been acquitted of a crime, that's the end of it.

 

[dtugg]

I thought someone could be tried for a crime, again, if new evidence came about to make such a trial worthwhile.

Wouldn't this confession constitute new evidence?

No. New evidence is not grounds for a new trial on the part of the state. But as AvalonXQ eloquently explained, this piece of crap wasn't charged with the same crime twice.

 

[dudalb]

You misread. Society or the State should not ever reduce itself to the level of the murderer, which it does by using capital punishment. And yes, society would be better off without him, which is what life imprisonment is for.

BY that logic, society has no right to use lethal force to defend itself.

 

[Morrigan]

You misread. Society or the State should not ever reduce itself to the level of the murderer, which it does by using capital punishment.

No, I didn't misread. Capital punishment isn't murder. Murder, by definition, is the unlawful killing of someone. You can kill someone lawfully, such as in self-defense, by sheer accident, or through the death penalty, and it's not murder. As someone else said, society isn't "sinking to the level of kidnappers" by locking prisoners up, even if both a kidnapper and the government would do the similar action of locking up someone in a room.

There are many good, practical reasons to be opposed to the death penalty. "Society shouldn't lower itself to that" isn't one of them, it's totally bogus.

And yes, society would be better off without him, which is what life imprisonment is for.

Some people feel that's not good enough. The murderer could be released on parole, he (or she, really, let's not forget that bitch Karla Homolka who's roaming about freely in my country) could escape, he could murder someone while in prison, and so on; he's still a danger to others.

Plus, killing him will deprive him of all those years being raped in the shower.

True. Ironic that many who profess to be anti-death penalty for moral reasons then turn around and gleefully wish or accept the torture and suffering of the convict. Not saying you're one of those, mind you; perhaps you are against the death penalty specifically because you think it's not cruel enough. I, for one, would rather he simply disappeared forever.

How could that possibly follow?

Ponderingturtle is the absolute King, nay, Emperor of the Strawman here at the JREF. Keep that in mind if you want to bother addressing his posts.